If you accept the premise that dressing like a slut increases the chance of rape by a lesser or greater degree than it logically follows that if there were far fewer women dressed like sluts on the street the rape rate would decrease.

Not necessarily. It could just mean that a specific woman doesn’t have as high of a chance of being raped personally. Instead other factors would determine the chance of her being raped.

Rapists won't just not rape because a "slut," if it really is a factor that increases the chance of her being raped, isn't present. He or she would probably just move on to other women.

So again, I say it probably won’t have an impact but I’ll be a bit conservative and say it might have an insignificant impact which is what I said in my previous post.

Quote:

There would still be rapists, just less of them. Because one of the factors contributing to rape - slutdom - would have drastically diminished.

Not necessarily, as I said in that post. It could simply be a factor that contributes to a personal chance of being raped instead of the actual chance of the rape occurring. It might just influence, who to the rape will be done, by setting the person apart from the others in a way.

Quote:

Another factor that will reduce rape is to make the punishments alot harsher and better enforced.

Agreed, I’d say that is the best way to tackle rape. It tackles the rapist and potential rapists head on by incarcerating or executing rapists and warding off potential rapists through fear. If the justice system is made better, then I would say we wouldn’t even have to focus on other factors as they would probably have a minor impact.

Quote:

Another factor that will reduce rape is reversing the over-sexualisation of society.

I don’t know.

Quote:

Not alot I can do about that. It seems like common sense to me.

Uhuh…..

Quote:

Ok, one final time, yes the logic used in the examples is the same. I agreed to that.However the examples you gave a far more extreme and unreasonable - you can't expect women not to go outside, for example.

I agree that that is unreasonable and extreme but that does not matter. I’m trying to point out that more than a likely petty increase in the chance one is going to be raped is required to decide whether someone is to be partly responsible for the actual crime or any other incident that happens. Otherwise, one could hold a variety of people responsible for certain consequences as I did in my examples.

I’m well aware I can’t expect people to not go out, or not to drive or to purchase extra security and I don’t care if they do those things or not, but I can expect people to not dye their hair in a way that increases their chance of being raped as much as I can expect people to not dress themselves in a way that increases their chance of being raped.

I want a way to consider people responsible for certain things that is better thought out and consistent.

Quote:

That's just absurd. Expecting them to go out without most of their body exposed is certainly not unreasonable. If you don't understand why that is then we're at an impasse.

Actually, I’d say it’s just as unreasonable as telling people not to dye their hair colour a certain way that may increase the chance of rape (if it does) or telling people not to have a political tattoo which could increase the chance of them being attacked by a certain group.

The main thing I was focusing on is the way you judge someone to be responsible. You have been talking about someone being responsible of a crime that happened to them, to a certain degree, if they increased the chance of it happening and if it is reasonable to expect them not to demonstrate those behaviours.

It shouldn’t matter what the action is. Some may consider it bad to breast feed in public and think it is pretty reasonable to expect them not to do that but find alternative ways of feeding their child. If it somehow manages to arouse someone thereby increasing the chance that person may be a victim of a sexual attack, then they should be responsible according to the way you reason and in fact technically they would be. That’s why people need to find a better way to decide if somebody is responsible because a variety of things can be responsible for a certain crime or how the crime turned out.

The way I decide whether someone is actually going to be considered responsible is dependent on how much of an increase in the chance of being attacked or injured someone made. For example, I would say that if a woman joins a gang that’s known for raping women, probably increasing the likelihood of her being raped to a certainty, then I would say she is partly responsible. If one goes in to a cage with an untamed lion without any protection, therefore most likely increasing the chance of him or her being attacked by quite a lot, then I would say he or she would be partly responsible. If someone decides to dress in a certain way or style their hair in a certain way, most likely only increasing their chances of a certain type of crime directed at him or her by a small amount, considering that most people don’t tend to be major criminals and considering all the security we have such as police, physical security devices, weapons, other people, etc. then I would say that that would be so petty that it shouldn’t even be mentioned. It shouldn’t be mentioned considering that it was most likely a minor increase and due to the fact that it would probably cause more emotional distress. This also works for what would be considered a normal act. For example, if someone styles their hair in a way that makes it certain that they will be raped as soon as they step out their door, then I would say they are partly responsible for that stupid decision.

Quote:

Why is dressing like a slut unacceptable? Similar reasons why, at the other end of the spectrum, having women in Burqas is unacceptable in Western society. The Burqa demonstrates oppression of women, and thus devalues them, while slutdom demonstrates the very opposite - that women are nothing more then sexual objects to be gawped at and groped, thus also devaluing them.

Both of these are more to do with the rest of society rather than the actual clothing. The reason the burqa devalues women is because it is either forced on them or they’re socially pressured to wear them. So it’s to do with external entities. If a woman was to wear something that covered herself voluntarily and with little pressure, then I don’t really care. Dressing in what one would consider “slutty” clothing on the other hand, also is more to do with others, rather than the person who dressed like a “slut.” The clothing itself is fine, it’s how society reacts to it. Anyways, I don’t really see how a piece of clothing demonstrates anything. Perhaps, I misunderstood what you meant though.

Dressing in a certain way is as reasonable as dying one’s hair blonde. What I find strange is that you’re judging whether someone is responsible for a crime that they became a victim in by increasing the chance that it would occur to them, by deciding whether their actions are reasonable but then you assign responsibility to a guy with a swastika tattoo who got attacked. How is getting a tattoo unreasonable? I would say it’s just as reasonable as deciding how one clothes themselves, how they style their hair, etc.

Quote:

As above - a failed justice system which does not punish crimes properly is partly to blame for criminal activities.

I agree as they’re supposed to control the criminals and stop any potential criminals from committing a crime.

Quote:

A society which encourages criminal behaviour through it's various influences is also partly responsible for criminal activities.

I guess society can promote crime.

Quote:

A bad upbringing by parent/s who did not teach their child properly is also partly responsible for the criminal activities.

Well, I would prefer to study the relationship between crime and parenting before I start blaming parents.

Quote:

Unlike liberals, however, I wouldn't use these factors to try and get the criminal off, he'd still be harshly punished. However I would evaluate these other factors and strive to correct them in the hopes of reducing further crimes.

Good.

Quote:

Dress it up in whatever wording you like - if you accept the premise that dressing like a slut increases your chances of getting raped then by still choosing to dress like a slut you bear a small slice of the blame if you do get raped.

By the same token, someone willingly choosing to style their hair or dress in any other way is also to blame partly for increasing their chance of being raped, if it indeed increases their chance of rape. It doesn’t matter if one considers their actions fine or not. Blame is handed out by the influence it had on the consequence.

Even though they can be blamed for increasing their chances of being a victim, I wouldn’t really say it matters. since at most it would probably be a petty increase, so not really a good reason to hold them partly responsible. If however let’s say a woman dyes her hair blonde and this somehow increases her chance of being raped to almost a certainty then I would say she would be partly responsible, just as I would hold you responsible for going near a lion covered in meat in that scenario you described.

Quote:

All I gave was an example equivalent to the ones you've been giving me.

Walking into a lion enclosure wrapped in meat greatly increases your chances of getting killed. Yet the lions are still the ones that choose to do the killing of their own will.

You did no such thing. If you indeed did, wouldn’t that example be incorrect, which it isn't, since according to you mine were.

If you were referring to the fact that both were responsible for the attack I already cleared that up and the post highlighted that I was talking about the increase in the chance of an attack. Perhaps, I should have mentioned the way I decide whether someone is responsible is if they increase the chance they are killed or injured by quite a bit.

Quote:

I don't know where you come from but in the last 60 years the proliferation and encouragement of slutdom has increased a hundred-fold.

I said people on average don't encourage it. This is from my own experiences. Anyways, it doesn't really matter in regards to the issue.

Quote:

1. They created that standard because that's what their morality and idea of society guided them to.

2. We don't have a 'new standard' per se, we have the collapse of the old standard orchestrated by subversives, social engineers and infiltrators who are intent on destroying our society.

The shift in what society would consider normal creates a new standard.

Quote:

I'm deciding whether someone bears any responsibility for a crime when they choose to do something that increases the chances of that crime happening. And don't bother repeating those absurd examples about blonde hair and 'not going outside' - I've answered that above.

I’ll admit the “not going outside” example was absurd but it was meant to be. I was trying to show that an increase in something bad happening is not necessarily a reason to blame someone even though you can and you would technically be right. The dyeing your hair blond example is just as absurd as telling people not to dress in a certain way that increases the chance of them being attacked. If someone dyes their hair blond and if it would increase the chance that that person would be attacked by a lot, then I would say they can be blamed if they knew about how high of an increase they would make. It's more about how much they increase the chance of them being attacked.

Quote:

1. You seem to feel compelled to defend slutdom. I'm not sure why that is. Defending slutdom, in my eyes, is similar to defending the idea that woman should wear Burqas. They're two extremes which shouldn't be defended in Western society.

2. You lack credibility because you've made silly, extreme examples and refuse to listen to why they have no bearing on this discussion.

3. Finally you lack credibility because even though you accept that dressing like a slut may increase the chances of getting raped you refuse to accept this has any bearing on the crime of getting raped.

1. I’m not defending “slutdom.” I’m defending women from being blamed for a rape due to their decision in clothing. If you wanted to simply argue against “sluts,” you should have just done that, instead of describing how they’re responsible for a rape that happened to them by increasing the chance it occurred to them, while absolving people that choose differing styles of clothing or hairstyles that may increase the chance of them being raped just because you think they’re morally acceptable clothing or whatever.

2.I agree, I made some extreme examples, but so what? You said that an increase in the chance of rape is how you assigned responsibility to those who dress like “sluts.” It doesn’t matter in what way you look at the behaviour. If dyeing one’s hair blonde and dressing like a “slut” both increase the chance of that person being raped to a very high chance, then I would say both are partly responsible, even though I don't find any of those behaviours bad. The influence a behaviour has on a consequence is what matters.

3.I said that it can increase the chance of someone personally getting raped and I said one can be made to be responsible for the probable petty increase just as much as someone who does something else such as dyeing their hair blonde can be made responsible. I however think that the increase in chance should be quite high for anyone to actually talk about them being responsible.

Quote:

But how does such a thing have any basis in reality?

That's like saying locking all of your doors and windows at night and installing an efficient alarm system increases your chance of getting burgled.

Yeah, like a piece of clothing actually physically stops a person from getting at you and warns you that someone is around, giving you time to escape decreasing the chance one will be attacked.

Also, a criminal may have different attractions and may be looking for a person that seems easier to control, while physical security would generally deter criminals as it would increase their chance of being caught. So no, it's not like saying that.

Anyways, you obviously don’t understand that there are different classifications of rapists. The sort I would be looking at in regards to the increase in the chance a modestly dressed woman has of getting raped would be one that is considered a power rapist. Now, as I said, a modestly dressed woman can bring out the image of being submissive and easy to control. This could increase the chance that person would be picked out for a rape by a stranger or by a spouse. There’s also the possibility that a person may find a modestly dressed woman more attractive, therefore increasing the chance of her being raped.

There were those who raped to feel powerful, but also a group of rapists who generally believed their victim did want sex with them, but couldn't see it. This group tends to express remorse sometime after the rape.

Dressing like a slut may encourage the above type of rapist. But we have to remember most sexual assault is by people known to the victim.

When I was a young, attractive university student I had a part-time job where I had to be out on the street in the early hours of the morning to catch a bus to work. At that time there were still people up from spending the night at a bar and consequently I used to have to fend off lots of unwanted attention with cars pulling over and trying to pick me up on my way to the bus stop. I started dressing in as unattractive a way as I could muster and faking a limp and what do you know--? I was able to get to the bus stop in peace! Funny that...!

Anyone insisting that perceived attractiveness plays no part in selecting an object for sexual assaults is wearing pink, rhinestone-studded blinders. You can argue that it should make no difference but you're just spinning your wheels.

__________________

The extremist Muslim wants to behead you, while the moderate Muslim wants the extremist Muslim to behead you.

When I was a young, attractive university student I had a part-time job where I had to be out on the street in the early hours of the morning to catch a bus to work. At that time there were still people up from spending the night at a bar and consequently I used to have to fend off lots of unwanted attention with cars pulling over and trying to pick me up on my way to the bus stop. I started dressing in as unattractive a way as I could muster and faking a limp and what do you know--? I was able to get to the bus stop in peace! Funny that...!

Anyone insisting that perceived attractiveness plays no part in selecting an object for sexual assaults is wearing pink, rhinestone-studded blinders. You can argue that it should make no difference but you're just spinning your wheels.

First of all, your scenario doesn't mean they were looking for someone to sexually assault.

Secondly, many different types of clothing can be attractive. A modestly dressed person could look attractive and therefore can have the same things happen to them.

Not necessarily. It could just mean that a specific woman doesn’t have as high of a chance of being raped personally. Instead other factors would determine the chance of her being raped.

There are indeed other factors that also play a part. If she is staggering around drunk and clueless then that could also increase her chances of getting raped because she presents an easy target. The potential rapist might think that she won't really know what's going on if he rapes her and the chances of her remembering the incident, let alone reporting it, in the morning are remote.

So that's something else a woman shouldn't do if her objective is to keep the chances of getting raped down to a minimum. Getting bladdered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

Rapists won't just not rape because a "slut," if it really is a factor that increases the chance of her being raped, isn't present. He or she would probably just move on to other women.

Firstly you're back talking as though this is some serial rapist or something. Secondly you're still dancing around this scenario without acknowledging the core point - dressing like a slut probably does increase your chance of getting raped.

That's it. There is no addendum to that. Case closed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

So again, I say it probably won’t have an impact but I’ll be a bit conservative and say it might have an insignificant impact which is what I said in my previous post.

If the impact it has can mean the difference between getting raped and not getting raped then I'd hardly call it insignificant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

Not necessarily, as I said in that post. It could simply be a factor that contributes to a personal chance of being raped instead of the actual chance of the rape occurring. It might just influence, who to the rape will be done, by setting the person apart from the others in a way.

In which case it has increased said slut's personal likelihood of getting raped, yet she still chose to dress that way. Therefore if she get's raped she bears a small slice of responsibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

Agreed, I’d say that is the best way to tackle rape. It tackles the rapist and potential rapists head on by incarcerating or executing rapists and warding off potential rapists through fear. If the justice system is made better, then I would say we wouldn’t even have to focus on other factors as they would probably have a minor impact.

It requires both - severe punishment but also strict education. The justice system shouldn't be there just so it punishes crimes so harshly that it allows all sorts of unwanted elements to occur in society risk-free.

Ultimately the long-term change needs to come from within the people. A change of mindset.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

I agree that that is unreasonable and extreme but that does not matter.

Of course it matters. We're talking about how we can reduce rape. Saying women shouldn't dress like sluts is an entirely reasonable and logical idea. Saying women shouldn't go outside isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

I’m well aware I can’t expect people to not go out, or not to drive or to purchase extra security and I don’t care if they do those things or not, but I can expect people to not dye their hair in a way that increases their chance of being raped as much as I can expect people to not dress themselves in a way that increases their chance of being raped.

Well I think the vast majority of people would consider that unreasonable.

Incidently do you remember that news items from a couple of years ago which said that blonde women in some Scandinavian country (I forget which) are dying their hair dark to avoid being targeted by immigrant predators? Just thought I'd mention it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

The main thing I was focusing on is the way you judge someone to be responsible. You have been talking about someone being responsible of a crime that happened to them, to a certain degree, if they increased the chance of it happening and if it is reasonable to expect them not to demonstrate those behaviours.

Yep, that sums it up fairly well.

I expect people to take reasonable precautions to avoid a crime being commited against them.

I expect people to lock their car doors when they've parked in a known crime-ridden area.

I expect white people not to walk alone late at night through an immigrant ghetto.

I expect women to not dress like tarts and/or get so drunk that they barely know what they're doing when they're out late at night.

If the above precautions are not taken then the person bears a small slice of responsibility if they become the victims of crime, purely because they have increased their chances of becoming a victim by not taking those precautions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

It shouldn’t matter what the action is. Some may consider it bad to breast feed in public and think it is pretty reasonable to expect them not to do that but find alternative ways of feeding their child. If it somehow manages to arouse someone thereby increasing the chance that person may be a victim of a sexual attack, then they should be responsible according to the way you reason and in fact technically they would be. That’s why people need to find a better way to decide if somebody is responsible because a variety of things can be responsible for a certain crime or how the crime turned out.

There is no perfect one-size-fits-all method of determining responsibility and guilt. It's a case of evaluating the situation using common sense and coming to the appropriate conclusion. It has to be done on a case by case basis, that's how the justice system works. I don't think an automatic black and white application of guilt without taking in various circumstances and factors is the best way to go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

The way I decide whether someone is actually going to be considered responsible is dependent on how much of an increase in the chance of being attacked or injured someone made. For example, I would say that if a woman joins a gang that’s known for raping women, probably increasing the likelihood of her being raped to a certainty, then I would say she is partly responsible. If one goes in to a cage with an untamed lion without any protection, therefore most likely increasing the chance of him or her being attacked by quite a lot, then I would say he or she would be partly responsible. If someone decides to dress in a certain way or style their hair in a certain way, most likely only increasing their chances of a certain type of crime directed at him or her by a small amount, considering that most people don’t tend to be major criminals and considering all the security we have such as police, physical security devices, weapons, other people, etc. then I would say that that would be so petty that it shouldn’t even be mentioned. It shouldn’t be mentioned considering that it was most likely a minor increase and due to the fact that it would probably cause more emotional distress. This also works for what would be considered a normal act. For example, if someone styles their hair in a way that makes it certain that they will be raped as soon as they step out their door, then I would say they are partly responsible for that stupid decision.

Well that seems to me to be a bit of a back-track. Up till now you seem to have struggled with the concept some someone bearing any responsibility no matter what they did to increase the chances of becoming a victim.

It seems we draw the line in a different place. I draw it at women dressing like sluts or getting so drunk that they barely know what they're doing. You set the bar rather higher.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

Both of these are more to do with the rest of society rather than the actual clothing. The reason the burqa devalues women is because it is either forced on them or they’re socially pressured to wear them. So it’s to do with external entities. If a woman was to wear something that covered herself voluntarily and with little pressure, then I don’t really care. Dressing in what one would consider “slutty” clothing on the other hand, also is more to do with others, rather than the person who dressed like a “slut.” The clothing itself is fine, it’s how society reacts to it. Anyways, I don’t really see how a piece of clothing demonstrates anything. Perhaps, I misunderstood what you meant though.

Actually you've got that wrong. Many - I'd say most - Muslim women don't wear the Burqa because they are, or they have been, directly oppressed. They wear them entirely of their own free will. It just so happens that the society and culture they were born into and grew up in conditions them to behave and dress a certain way. A sort of continual background oppression. It isn't as though when they get married the husband beckons her towards him with a Burqa in one hand and a cane in the other saying 'wear this or the beatings begin'.

It's exactly the same with dressing like a slut. The slut chooses to dress that way purely of her own free will. However the society and culture she has grown up in has conditioned and influenced her to behave and dress in a certain way. It's not as rigid or uniform as the Islamic way of conditioning but then again this slut-conditioning has only been around for a few decades, not 1300+ years. Give the Jews a bit longer and they'll have slutdom as part of the national cirriculum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

How is getting a tattoo unreasonable?

Getting a tattoo isn't. But specifically getting a particularly provocative one like a Swastika and having it in a place permanentnly observable by the public crosses the line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

I guess society can promote crime.

Very much so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

You did no such thing. If you indeed did, wouldn’t that example be incorrect, which it isn't, since according to you mine were.

I was seeing how you coped with an equally extreme example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

I said people on average don't encourage it. This is from my own experiences. Anyways, it doesn't really matter in regards to the issue.

Society enourages it. The music, television and film industries encourage it and these three mediums are the primary forms of influence on youngsters. A huge amount of youngsters - particularly girls AFAIK - watch MTV for example. And that most certainly does promote slutdom. As well as even worse things like race-mixing.

This also gives rise to generational copying. Girls of the 10-14 year old range see girls of the 16-20 year old range dressed like sluts and copy them. This is then repeated ad nauseum.

Lastly there is also peer pressure. Because society encourages girls to dress like sluts most do dress like sluts. Those who don't then feel sidelined, they're made out to be prudes or other such things. Basically 'not normal'.
I wonder whether this could be responsible for some of these 'not normal' girls deciding that they might be lesbian. It's not a nice thought, girls who don't dress like sluts might consider themselves to be lesbian - the Jew kills two birds with one stone if that's the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

The shift in what society would consider normal creates a new standard.

It's an artificial shift though, not determined by the usual social development but by an alien group infiltrating and subverting.

Either way it's a lower standard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

1. I’m not defending “slutdom.” I’m defending women from being blamed for a rape due to their decision in clothing. If you wanted to simply argue against “sluts,” you should have just done that, instead of describing how they’re responsible for a rape that happened to them by increasing the chance it occurred to them, while absolving people that choose differing styles of clothing or hairstyles that may increase the chance of them being raped just because you think they’re morally acceptable clothing or whatever.

It isn't just rape or sluts that this logic is applicable to. It's applicable to all crime.

Why do you think insurance companies don't pay out or refuse to insure you unless you've got a reasonable level of safety on something? For example if you leave your front door unlocked, don't have any alarm system etc, then they won't pay out if you're house is 'broken' into, because you didn't take the necessary precautions in securing your property.

They don't expect you to have machine guns mounted on your roof or for your house to be surrounded by razor-wire because those precautions would be unreasonable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

Yeah, like a piece of clothing actually physically stops a person from getting at you and warns you that someone is around, giving you time to escape decreasing the chance one will be attacked.

No, but it's still completely illogical. Saying a modestly dressed woman could increase her chances of getting raped is just flying in the face of common sense. It's oxymoronic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

Also, a criminal may have different attractions and may be looking for a person that seems easier to control, while physical security would generally deter criminals as it would increase their chance of being caught. So no, it's not like saying that.

Assuming lust comes into it then I fail to see how a modestly dressed woman increases her chances of getting raped compared to one exposing most of herself. It's the female form that drives male lust and therefore the more of the female form a lust-filled potential rapist is exposed to the higher the chances of rape.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

Anyways, you obviously don’t understand that there are different classifications of rapists. The sort I would be looking at in regards to the increase in the chance a modestly dressed woman has of getting raped would be one that is considered a power rapist. Now, as I said, a modestly dressed woman can bring out the image of being submissive and easy to control. This could increase the chance that person would be picked out for a rape by a stranger or by a spouse. There’s also the possibility that a person may find a modestly dressed woman more attractive, therefore increasing the chance of her being raped.

I really don't think rapists sit there with a pen and paper evaualting the psychology behind why a woman dresses in a certain way. I think the most they can handle is - 'she's dressed like a slut, she must be up for it'. That, combined with the raw arousal of - as Norman Stanley Fletcher would say - 'unfettered knockers' - is what does it for them.

However it may be possible that there're a small minorty of rapists who have a fetish for one thing or another. Maybe some of them prefer women dressed in office attire. However I hardly think this applies to 'mainstream' street rapists.

__________________

"Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy. You in America will see that some day.” ~ Mussolini to Edwin L James of the New York Times (1928)

"[The Jewish nation] dares spread an irreconcilable hatred against all nations; it revolts against all its masters. Always superstitious, always avid of the well-being enjoyed by others, always barbarous, crawling in misfortune, and insolent in prosperity. Here are what were the Jews in the eyes of the Greeks and the Romans who could read their books." ~ Voltaire, Essai sur les mœurs (1756) Tome 1, page 186

"I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people [Jews] would not some day become deadly to the human race." ~ Voltaire, Lettres de Memmius a Ciceron (1771)

"If the race is in danger of being oppressed or even exterminated, the question of legality is only of secondary importance."
"The world is not for faint-hearted races" —Adolf Hitler, Volume 1, Chapter 3, Mein Kampf

There are indeed other factors that also play a part. If she is staggering around drunk and clueless then that could also increase her chances of getting raped because she presents an easy target. The potential rapist might think that she won't really know what's going on if he rapes her and the chances of her remembering the incident, let alone reporting it, in the morning are remote.

Yes, I agreed that someone being drunk increases the person’s vulnerability. No I don’t think they should be blamed because they’re probably rather safe due to laws, police, security, the general population, etc.

Oh and dressing like a “slut” only increases the personal chance of a woman being raped in a specific situation by a specific type of rapist or potential rapist. So in total, a modestly dressed woman may actually have a higher overall increase in the chance she would be raped.

Quote:

Firstly you're back talking as though this is some serial rapist or something. Secondly you're still dancing around this scenario without acknowledging the core point - dressing like a slut probably does increase your chance of getting raped.

That's it. There is no addendum to that. Case closed.

No, the case isn’t closed. No my point fits rapists and potential rapist, even the ones that are going to rape due to sexual arousal from a woman which are probably most likely found at parties.

Dressing like a “slut” probably increases the chance a rape will happen depending on what the situation is and what the rapist or potential rapist is looking for. All types of clothing have the potential of increasing the chance a woman will be raped.

Lastly, I did acknowledge that point. I just said that the crime might still happen, but to whom; it will change, if there were no “sluts.” In fact, if you recall, I said a woman increases her personal chance of being raped in reference to the party example with the drunken guy.

Now, the case is closed!

Quote:

If the impact it has can mean the difference between getting raped and not getting raped then I'd hardly call it insignificant.

Yes, it is insignificant from a macro point of view. In regards to the likelihood that a variety of types of clothing can increase the chance a woman is going to be raped and the probability that the types of rapists that would rape due to arousal at a bar, party, etc. are a small group of rapists, then I would say it’s likely to be an insignificant change when compared to the aggregate amount of rapes caused by other reasons. Then one would have to consider the possibility that the person might get attracted to women that aren’t dressed like “sluts” and the crime might still happen. So when looking at a national effort to tell the peoples of the nation to not wear a certain type of clothing and its impact, I would say it is insignificant and rather pointless when the rape rate could probably be reduced by simply increasing security and educating people on the consequence of committing such a serious crime.

Quote:

In which case it has increased said slut's personal likelihood of getting raped, yet she still chose to dress that way. Therefore if she get's raped she bears a small slice of responsibility.

I’m well aware that she would voluntarily increase her personal chance of being raped however she does not necessarily increase the chance of the crime actually happening, which was the point of what I said. She may just influence how the crime will turn out and therefore, one should not immediately assign blame to her, even if a probable small increase was considered a good enough reason to blame someone for being a victim. Then there’s also the question if she knew whether an increase would actually happen when she started wearing the “slutty” clothing.

Anyways, in regards to blaming someone for a probably small increase in the chance the person will be raped due to the way they alter their appearance.

Okay.

So you’re going to blame people who dress differently from other groups for increasing their chances they will be attacked by the other groups?

So you’re going to blame people who dye their hair a certain way that will increase their chances of being attacked?

So you’re going to blame people for listening to a genre of music that might increase their chances of being bullied?

So you’re going to blame people for going against the multi-racial BS being taught at schools for being attacked?

So you’re going to blame a woman who dresses modestly for possibly increasing her chance of being raped as well?

Hell, let’s just blame most people now. This is chaotic; therefore the human collective has devised laws to protect people from this by decreasing the chance of fighting among different sub-groups of a nation.

All these are just as unreasonable.

Quote:

It requires both - severe punishment but also strict education. The justice system shouldn't be there just so it punishes crimes so harshly that it allows all sorts of unwanted elements to occur in society risk-free.

Ultimately the long-term change needs to come from within the people. A change of mindset.

No, mostly all you need is punishment for those who commit a crime. As mentioned this would reduce the amount of criminals running about and would teach others not to commit crime. The only education one really needs is to teach individuals not to commit crime due to the consequences of these crimes at schools. It can be similar to the anti-bullying programs some schools have.

Quote:

Of course it matters. We're talking about how we can reduce rape. Saying women shouldn't dress like sluts is an entirely reasonable and logical idea. Saying women shouldn't go outside isn't.

No, we’re talking about assigning responsibility for a crime. To reduce rape just as we reduce bullying at schools we set up laws and we get people to maintain and uphold these rules such as teachers on yard duty or police. This lets people exercise their freedoms whilst reducing the chance they will be attacked.

No, it doesn’t matter, as I was trying to make a point that people should be looking at the actual impact of an action rather than the action itself. This makes far more sense in regards to assigning responsibility since responsibility is related to consequences such as the increase in the chance a rape will happen.

On top of that, there are probably going to be people that disagree with your decision in telling people how to dress and could use the law, the possibility that various types of decisions people make in regards to the way they appear can increase the chance they will be attacked by a certain group, the potential of physical security and the justice system has in minimising the chance of being raped by a lot, etc. to argue that it is not reasonable to blame someone.

Quote:

Well I think the vast majority of people would consider that unreasonable.

And the majority of people would probably think blaming someone for a rape that happened to them based on the way they dressed is unreasonable. Anyways, what I said wasn’t unreasonable. It’s actually quite fair. If someone can be blamed for an attack on them based on their clothing then the same can be done to other forms of clothing and other ways people decide to alter their appearance. That’s quite reasonable.

Personally however, I don’t think any of them should be blamed unless it increases the chances of someone being attacked by quite a lot (and if they knew about it and did it voluntarily) which I would be doubtful due to the numerous factors that can protect people from crime.

It’s the same way I don’t blame people for indoor rock climbing for influencing the chances they will be injured since the chance of them actually being injured is probably quite minimal considering the fact that the heights don’t tend to be that high and due to their protective gear. If the activity somehow resulted in a high chance of being injured then yes I would blame them for the decision they made to take part in a risky activity. It doesn’t mean what they did was bad but it is reasonable to blame them.

Anyways, it doesn’t matter what the vast majority think.

Quote:

Incidently do you remember that news items from a couple of years ago which said that blonde women in some Scandinavian country (I forget which) are dying their hair dark to avoid being targeted by immigrant predators? Just thought I'd mention it.

And? If that’s supposed to mention that people are in fact changing the colour of their hair to reduce the chance they will be raped, there are women who probably changed the way they dressed after a negative experience also. We also don’t know how much people are dying their hair a different colour to avoid being attacked. I don’t even see how this has an impact on what I’m saying.

Quote:

I expect people to lock their car doors when they've parked in a known crime-ridden area.

This can fit in with how I judge if someone is responsible.

Quote:

I expect white people not to walk alone late at night through an immigrant ghetto.

So can this.

Quote:

I expect women to not dress like tarts and/or get so drunk that they barely know what they're doing when they're out late at night.

So can this.

However, there are probably reasons one can provide that suggest that it is not reasonable to blame the individual, using laws, the possibility that the crime would still happen, etc.

For example, in the car example, it is quite possible that locking the car doors wouldn’t really do anything. If someone is intending to make off with the vehicle he would have to know how to get it running, so I don’t think a locked car would be much of a deterrent since he or she would probably have the knowledge on how to open the vehicle. If the person was intending to steal goods within the car, then again, I wouldn’t say it’s much of a deterrent. So in the end, it could be argued that there was no point in locking the car doors in a crime-ridden area or it had a very small impact, therefore it is not reasonable to blame the guy or gal.

Quote:

There is no perfect one-size-fits-all method of determining responsibility and guilt. It's a case of evaluating the situation using common sense and coming to the appropriate conclusion. It has to be done on a case by case basis, that's how the justice system works. I don't think an automatic black and white application of guilt without taking in various circumstances and factors is the best way to go.

And you don’t see a problem with that? Okay, just like I suspect you have some serious biases when deciding whether someone is responsible for being a victim of rape or not, the same applies to the ones who are entrusted in convicting a criminal. These people will probably let their own views whether they are based on objective reasoning or purely emotional garbage with no evidence; influence the outcome of the trial. There are probably people who were let off after committing a rape because they were from a different cultural background, there are probably sportsmen who have been let off because they’re popular, and there are probably people that have been bribed as to change an outcome of a trial and so on and so on.

Anyways, I would think a simple Boolean answer would be a pretty good way to determine whether someone is responsible for breaking a law the justice system set up, especially if they set up a detailed categorical approach which should limit the ability for any biases to influence the final verdict. It's the same reason I think my way of determining if someone should be blamed to a certain extent, is good. It would greatly limit biases when deciding if someone is to blame and it works for I think all actions that involve increasing the chance of a certain consequence occurring. However, perhaps I would still add a few extra details such as if the person did it voluntarily and if they knew about the impact an action could have. Furthermore, the reason the justice system would have to look at it in more detail is since they are actually going to punish the person for their criminal behaviour, hence a more detailed discussion about the crime is needed to deal out an appropriate punishment, whether it be involved with money, the amount of hours spent doing community service or the amount of time spent in prison. I would prefer they would use a highly detailed categorical system listing different degrees of the severity of a crime and the different consequences for each one. We on the other hand, don't need to look at it in such a detailed way, since we are either looking to blame someone or not, something only answerable in two ways.

Quote:

Well that seems to me to be a bit of a back-track. Up till now you seem to have struggled with the concept some someone bearing any responsibility no matter what they did to increase the chances of becoming a victim.

No, I don’t think I have. All you heard about my views previously was that I don’t think someone who dressed like a “slut” should be blamed but I have mentioned that they are actually responsible for increasing their chance of rape. That’s because I don’t think they influence the crime too much, it would add more stress to the individual and if one wants to get in to reasonableness, with a probable minor influence on the chance of rape, I don’t want to tell people that if they don’t dress in a different way that is probably going to influence their chance of rape in a negative way as well, that they are to blame. I’d actually say my views on the topic are more reasonable then yours. So perhaps reasonableness does come in to play in regards to deciding the ways one should be held responsible for increasing the chance of something happening however, I highly doubt the way you’re deciding whether someone is responsible is fair.

Quote:

It seems we draw the line in a different place. I draw it at women dressing like sluts or getting so drunk that they barely know what they're doing. You set the bar rather higher.

I know why I set the bar higher.

1. People are probably always going to increase and decrease their chances of being injured or killed throughout the day depending where they are and who is with them, thereby influencing the impact their clothing has differently.

2. I see probable minor increases and decreases as insignificant and therefore see blaming a person for a consequence from such a likely minor influence, pathetic.

3. It may greatly remove the ability that bias will significantly impact on the decision to blame someone.

4. It’s efficient, as it can be used for I’m guessing all, but I’ll be a bit conservative and say, most scenarios, in which a person increased the chance of something bad happening.

5. It’s actually pretty reasonable.

Quote:

Actually you've got that wrong. Many - I'd say most - Muslim women don't wear the Burqa because they are, or they have been, directly oppressed. They wear them entirely of their own free will. It just so happens that the society and culture they were born into and grew up in conditions them to behave and dress a certain way. A sort of continual background oppression. It isn't as though when they get married the husband beckons her towards him with a Burqa in one hand and a cane in the other saying 'wear this or the beatings begin'.

How am I wrong? I said they’re either forced on them or they’re socially pressured to wear them. Social pressure covers quite a lot of ways they can be influenced to wear certain types of clothing and can occur in a variety of ways. I’m also pretty sure there have been areas where they have been forced to wear them. If I recall correctly the Taliban used to force women to wear the burqa and I also wouldn’t be surprised if there have been domestic issues regarding people forcing women to wear them.

Anyways, the burqa is basically just an overkill in getting people to dress a certain way. Muslim women are already told how they are to dress under Islamic Law.

Quote:

It's exactly the same with dressing like a slut. The slut chooses to dress that way purely of her own free will. However the society and culture she has grown up in has conditioned and influenced her to behave and dress in a certain way. It's not as rigid or uniform as the Islamic way of conditioning but then again this slut-conditioning has only been around for a few decades, not 1300+ years. Give the Jews a bit longer and they'll have slutdom as part of the national cirriculum.

I never said the “slut” doesn’t choose not to dress that way voluntarily. I was talking about that the clothing only demonstrates something because the rest of society want to see it that way; hence it is more to do with others. A piece of clothing does not demonstrate anything unless it relates to the actions of the person or others.

Again, I barely see anyone dressing like “sluts.” Hell, not even when I went to London and Paris about 2 years ago.

Also, if one was to pressure a person to dress the way you would want them to, that to, would be “a sort of continual background oppression.”

Quote:

Getting a tattoo isn't. But specifically getting a particularly provocative one like a Swastika and having it in a place permanentnly observable by the public crosses the line.

I would think the point of a tattoo is to have it observable. Who gives a crap about it being provocative? The whole world is filled with provocative things. Dressing like an emo can be provocative. Your views are provocative. How someone looks at someone else can be provocative. Certain hand gestures or facial expressions can be provocative. We have however laws and security to reduce the chance of someone being attacked for these things and considering the majority probably wouldn’t attack someone for that, then I would say it’s pathetic to even blame someone for an attack because of that.

Quote:

Society enourages it. The music, television and film industries encourage it and these three mediums are the primary forms of influence on youngsters. A huge amount of yougsters - particularly girls AFAIK - watch MTV for example. And that most certainly does promote slutdom. As well as even worse things like race-mixing.

Quote:

This also gives rise to generational copying. Girls of the 10-14 year old range see girls of the 16-20 year old range dressed like sluts and copy them. This is then repeated ad nauseum.

Lastly there is also peer pressure. Because society encourages girls to dress like sluts most do dress like sluts. Those who don't then feel sidelined, they're made out to be prudes or other such things. Basically 'not normal'.
I wonder whether this could be responsible for some of these 'not normal' girls deciding that they might be lesbian. It's not a nice thought, girls who don't dress like sluts might consider themselves to be lesbian - the Jew kills two birds with one stone if that's the case.

How many times do I have to say it? People on average don’t from my personal experience. From what I see, most people tend to wear simply jeans and a shirt. Most of the people that dress differently look like emos or hipsters. Hell, I’ve also seen news reports, T.V. shows, etc. putting “sluts” in a negative light. The only industry I’ve seen basically promoting it has been in the music industry and in specific genres of music.

Quote:

It's an artificial shift though, not determined by the usual social development but by an alien group infiltrating and subverting.

Quote:

Either way it's a lower standard.

It doesn’t matter if it’s “artificial” in regards to what we were talking about. It is still a new standard. If society decided to voluntarily change their standard then it is not artificial. Hell, I don’t even know if Jews were the ones who brought about the rise in it. Behaviour of societies changes throughout history.

Why is the new dress type a lower standard? I don’t even get how you would decide how it’s a lower standard.

Quote:

It isn't just rape or sluts that this logic is applicable to. It's applicable to all crime.

Just because it’s applicable doesn’t mean it’s a good way to decide whether one is responsible. Technically what I said about having a certain increase is applicable but you disagree with it.

Quote:

Why do you think insurance companies don't pay out or refuse to insure you unless you've got a reasonable level of safety on something? For example if you leave your front door unlocked, don't have any alarm system etc, then they won't pay out if you're house is 'broken' into, because you didn't take the necessary precautions in securing your property.

Quote:

They don't expect you to have machine guns mounted on your roof or for your house to be surrounded by razor-wire because those precautions would be unreasonable.

That’s a bad example.

The insurance industry is one that’s out to make a profit. If they are extremely strict in what conditions they would set to actually pay for any damages, they won’t make a lot of revenue, thus decreasing the amount of net profit they will have. If they were extremely liberal in what they would pay for, they would be increasing their expenses and therefore decreasing their net profit as well. So it’s more about the influence of profit on their decisions and I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the conditions they set are considered unreasonable by the general public. So my first point is that, insurance companies would decide on what conditions they set, if they would insure or not insure something, due to the profit motivator and not necessarily to do with what one considers reasonable.

Secondly, other than to make a profit, an insurance company, like the justice system, has different activities that they look after and have separate missions and visions to other entities, such as the general population, which within it, has individuals with varying objectives. In regards to the justice system their objective is to punish criminals and prevent crime based on the laws they set up. In regards to insurance companies they look to provide the service of insuring items or insuring medical costs and so on and so on. For both of these entities, even though they may have people within the organisation that have varying views, those people will be influenced by how the management of the organisations have decided to act on the behaviour of those who are in some external way connected to them. So these groups look at differing activities and in varying ways due to different goals and due to different outcomes. When looking at the general public however, we do not have an official way of deciding whether we would blame someone for the less legal and business related sociocultural issues, hence we’re having this argument. So different organisations have different issues and responsibilities to look after, with different actions and consequences, therefore it is difficult to compare it with how the general public decides on who is to blame, for example, on issues in which a person increased his chances of being a victim of crime.

Thirdly, just because an insurance company or another organisation assigns responsibility in a certain way, it doesn’t mean it’s the best way to decide responsibility for the issue of increasing the chance something negative will happen. Hell, even in regards to what you would consider reasonable to blame someone, there are probably organisations that think the way you assign blame is unreasonable and would have reasons as to why the person shouldn’t be blamed. For something you would consider enough to blame the victim of a rape, for example the clothing, the justice system generally most likely would not consider that a good reason to blame the person, even though there probably have been cases where they have reduced the sentence or even let the criminal go. Even with insurance companies. I’m not sure if they involve themselves in rape and the damage it may cause to the person and any materials such as jewelry and clothing, but I doubt the majority wouldn’t pay for the goods that have been broken or ripped and wouldn’t pay for any medical and psychological assistance, just because someone was dressed like a “slut.”

Note: I don’t have any experience with insurance companies so it’s based on what I consider likely ways insurance companies would determine how they would run their operation.

Quote:

No, but it's still completely illogical. Saying a modestly dressed woman could increase her chances of getting raped is just flying in the face of common sense. It's oxymoronic.

No it isn’t. Considering that there are a variety of rapists, raping for a variety of reasons, just as there are differing sorts of murderers, that commit a murder for differing reasons, it is quite possible that someone dressing modestly, increases that person’s chance of being raped by certain types of rapists, while dressing like a “slut,” increases the chance one will be raped by other types of rapists. So if the rapist was one that looked for power and therefore is likely to attack a modestly dressed woman due to an association made by him, and if these types of rapists were more common, then it is possible that a modestly dressed woman has an overall greater chance of being raped than someone dressed like a “slut.”

It’s the same thing that happens when one decides to leave their home. Inside the house the person is likely to be injured or killed by certain types of items such as kitchen equipment, or is likely to be raped by a certain type of person such as someone they know. When they leave their home however, the person is more likely to be injured, killed or raped by other factors such as vehicles, strangers, etc. Though, I don’t know which condition has a greater chance of increasing the likelihood of something negative happening, just as we don’t know who has increased the chance that they would be raped more.So no, it’s not “completely illogical.”

Quote:

Assuming lust comes into it then I fail to see how a modestly dressed woman increases her chances of getting raped compared to one exposing most of herself. It's the female form that drives male lust and therefore the more of the female form a lust-filled potential rapist is exposed to the higher the chances of rape.

On the other hand, if someone dressed modestly is considered more attractive in regards to facial structure, body mass, etc. then someone dressed like a “slut,” it’s likely that she would be chosen as a victim by someone that is intending to rape or in regards to just arousing interest which brings about a rape. She can also arouse the interest of a potential rapist probably more than girls dressed like “sluts,” if she is considered more attractive through non-artificial means when differently dressed women are present. So even if lust was purely the source of the rape occurring, then it is quite possible a modestly dressed woman could still have a higher chance of being raped and it isn’t necessarily the clothing that brings about the rape.

Also, if lust was the factor that played a part in the rape occurring, I doubt a woman exhibiting her body would have much of an impact. The guy is probably one movie sex scene away from becoming a serial rapist.

Quote:

I really don't think rapists sit there with a pen and paper evaualting the psychology behind why a woman dresses in a certain way. I think the most they can handle is - 'she's dressed like a slut, she must be up for it'. That, combined with the raw arousal of - as Norman Stanley Fletcher would say - 'unfettered knockers' - is what does it for them.

No, I don’t think so. A person who chooses to rape someone because “she’s dressed like a slut, she must be up for it,” which I think is a complete joke of an excuse to rape someone, considering that a person has to probably have an IQ less than 70 to think that a woman would enjoy being forcibly penetrated, would simply be an association made by him. This can also be applied to the look of being submissive and easy to control by dressing in modestly dressed clothing. It is simply an association made by them and would hardly need to be thoroughly evaluated by them prior to the rape.

Anyways, I’m also pretty sure most rapes are thought to be planned, therefore they would likely be reviewing the characteristics of the person and how they’re going to commit the crime.

Quote:

However it may be possible that there're a small minorty of rapists who have a fetish for one thing or another. Maybe some of them prefer women dressed in office attire. However I hardly think this applies to 'mainstream' street rapists.

And I don’t think what you’ve been saying applies to many rapists, especially the average street rapist. Considering that sexual desires vary with individuals and that we’re talking about rapists that have a completely sexual reason to commit rape, then wouldn’t it be logical to also say that they would have specific interests in sex just like probably every individual on the planet? Personally, I think rapists or anyone that can easily be influenced to commit rape would go after a variety of women but would prefer those that they are particularly interested and if they spot them, then they would go for them over others.

A lot of women on here are very naive, no offense. I used to work as a bouncer in nightclubs for a few years and I have seen what happens when scantily clad women are thrown together with some young horny guys, sprinkle some alcohol in the mix, and if you think that good things result from there or girls arent more likely to get raped, you need to have your head examined.

Yes, I agreed that someone being drunk increases the person’s vulnerability. No I don’t think they should be blamed because they’re probably rather safe due to laws, police, security, the general population, etc.

I don't understand this sentence. If you agree that by getting drunk she increases her vulnerability - and therefore her vulnerability to being raped as well - and yet she still chooses to go ahead and do it then a part of the blame can be laid on her as well. Just a bit.

Asking women to not drink so much that they get plastered is not an unreasonable request.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

Oh and dressing like a “slut” only increases the personal chance of a woman being raped in a specific situation by a specific type of rapist or potential rapist. So in total, a modestly dressed woman may actually have a higher overall increase in the chance she would be raped.

We're talking about individuals here. We're talking about whether a woman - singular - increases her chance of getting raped by dressing in a certain way. If you agree that she does then it logically follows that she gets a small slice of the blame as well if she still goes ahead and chooses to dress that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

Dressing like a “slut” probably increases the chance a rape will happen depending on what the situation is and what the rapist or potential rapist is looking for. All types of clothing have the potential of increasing the chance a woman will be raped.

The thing is dressing like a slut is purposely designed to draw attention to the sexual qualities of the female body. Dressing modestly is NOT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

Lastly, I did acknowledge that point. I just said that the crime might still happen, but to whom; it will change, if there were no “sluts.” In fact, if you recall, I said a woman increases her personal chance of being raped in reference to the party example with the drunken guy.

As I said above - we're talking about individuals here. If you agree, which you seem to, that a woman increases her chances of getting raped by dressing like a tart and/or getting drunk then she therefore has to accept a small amount of responsibility if she gets raped.
Simple as.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

Anyways, in regards to blaming someone for a probably small increase in the chance the person will be raped due to the way they alter their appearance.

You seem to be dancing round various points unable to commit yourself like I have. Dressing like a slut is, as I said above, designed to draw attention to the female sexual proclivities. Dressing modestly is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

So you’re going to blame people who dress differently from other groups for increasing their chances they will be attacked by the other groups?

So you’re going to blame people who dye their hair a certain way that will increase their chances of being attacked?

So you’re going to blame people for listening to a genre of music that might increase their chances of being bullied?

So you’re going to blame people for going against the multi-racial BS being taught at schools for being attacked?

So you’re going to blame a woman who dresses modestly for possibly increasing her chance of being raped as well?

The answer to all of these above questions is NO. Because they're not reasonable requests. Asking women to not expose 60%+ of their bodies when going out is not an unreasonable request.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

All these are just as unreasonable.

There is no comparison between the examples you gave above and dressing like a slut.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

No, mostly all you need is punishment for those who commit a crime. As mentioned this would reduce the amount of criminals running about and would teach others not to commit crime. The only education one really needs is to teach individuals not to commit crime due to the consequences of these crimes at schools. It can be similar to the anti-bullying programs some schools have.

Punishment alone is not sufficient.

Your idea would be the equivalent to having people with slabs of meat attached to them run aroun a lion enclosure at a zoo but the lions get whipped every time they try and go for the meat.

(Excuse the crude example and don't try and interpret any hidden messages, I just can't be arsed to think of a better one at the moment.)

What is required is for women to be brought up and taught to be be ladies and men brought up and taught to be, to use an old-fashioned term, 'gentlemen'. Your idea of allowing women to be brought up like tarts but to have a justice system harsh enough that it punishes men for 'taking the bait' I don't like at all.

Have a robust justice system, yes, but have it alongside the education.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

On top of that, there are probably going to be people that disagree with your decision in telling people how to dress and could use the law, the possibility that various types of decisions people make in regards to the way they appear can increase the chance they will be attacked by a certain group, the potential of physical security and the justice system has in minimising the chance of being raped by a lot, etc. to argue that it is not reasonable to blame someone.

Of course there will be people who disagree with my decision. There are many people - particularly liberals - who use exactly the same argument for the Burqa: 'We shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear!'. This is the same argument you're using.

I believe we shouldn't tell people what they should wear, but we can specify loose parameters as to what people shouldn't wear. The Burqa and slut-dressing are two opposites which shouldn't be allowed. In the case of the Burqa it should be out-right banned (not that there would be any Arab-Muslims here in a WN state but that's another issue). Slut dressing could be phased out of existence by education as well as slut-shaming, which is even taking place in todays highly-sexualised world. Which is a glimmer of hope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

It’s the same way I don’t blame people for indoor rock climbing for influencing the chances they will be injured since the chance of them actually being injured is probably quite minimal considering the fact that the heights don’t tend to be that high and due to their protective gear. If the activity somehow resulted in a high chance of being injured then yes I would blame them for the decision they made to take part in a risky activity. It doesn’t mean what they did was bad but it is reasonable to blame them.

That's just not comparable.

If you want to use that analogy and marry it up with the issue we're discussing then it would go more like:

If someone chooses to rock climb indoors but chooses not to wear any protective gear, do they take any of the blame if they suffer serious injury?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

And? If that’s supposed to mention that people are in fact changing the colour of their hair to reduce the chance they will be raped, there are women who probably changed the way they dressed after a negative experience also. We also don’t know how much people are dying their hair a different colour to avoid being attacked. I don’t even see how this has an impact on what I’m saying.

I mention it for the following reason:

There are women in Scandinavia which have the intelligence to realise that their blonde hair increases the chances of them being targeted and raped by immigrant scum. They therefore took the unfortunate step of dying their hair dark to decrease their chances of getting raped.

This seems to be a rather isolated and localised occurrence and doesn't apply to rapists as a whole so asking all blonde women to dye their hair dark is unreasonable. However dressing like a slut does apply more generally to rapist appetites worldwide, thus asking them to not be so provocative is not unreasonable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

For example, in the car example, it is quite possible that locking the car doors wouldn’t really do anything. If someone is intending to make off with the vehicle he would have to know how to get it running, so I don’t think a locked car would be much of a deterrent since he or she would probably have the knowledge on how to open the vehicle. If the person was intending to steal goods within the car, then again, I wouldn’t say it’s much of a deterrent. So in the end, it could be argued that there was no point in locking the car doors in a crime-ridden area or it had a very small impact, therefore it is not reasonable to blame the guy or gal.

You're correct.

To the person who is wholly bent on breaking into and stealing a car the locked doors might not make a big difference. Just like the determined rapist wouldn't care about only targeting slut-dressed women.

However what about all the fence-sitters out there? What about the casual stroller by who tries each car door to see if they're unlocked or not? What about the not-so-determined rapist who is tipped over the edge because he sees a drunken slut in the gutter?

And you don’t see a problem with that? Okay, just like I suspect you have some serious biases when deciding whether someone is responsible for being a victim of rape or not, the same applies to the ones who are entrusted in convicting a criminal. These people will probably let their own views whether they are based on objective reasoning or purely emotional garbage with no evidence; influence the outcome of the trial. There are probably people who were let off after committing a rape because they were from a different cultural background, there are probably sportsmen who have been let off because they’re popular, and there are probably people that have been bribed as to change an outcome of a trial and so on and so on.

What is your point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

I know why I set the bar higher.

In my opinion setting the bar at not dressing like a slut is perfectly reasonable. The people of the 1950s would agree with me. The people of today's Jewish-inspired degenerate society might not agree with me. I know which group I find more qualified to make a proper judgement though: the people of the 1950s.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

How am I wrong? I said they’re either forced on them or they’re socially pressured to wear them. Social pressure covers quite a lot of ways they can be influenced to wear certain types of clothing and can occur in a variety of ways. I’m also pretty sure there have been areas where they have been forced to wear them. If I recall correctly the Taliban used to force women to wear the burqa and I also wouldn’t be surprised if there have been domestic issues regarding people forcing women to wear them.

1. 'Socially pressured' isn't the right term. Most of them wear the Burqa entirely of their own free will. However what they HAVE been is socially/culturally influenced into wearing them. They've grown up believing that's what's expected of them. I wouldn't say that's social pressure. Pressure implies something in between influence and force, such as being pressured into smoking at school. Being goaded, teased or taunted. Force is when you physcially force someone to do something or you threaten them.

It's exactly the same with slut-dressing. They haven't been forced OR pressured (well, occasionally pressured, virtually never forced) into dressing like a slut, they have been socially/culturally influenced into dressing like a slut.
Two sides of the same oppressive coin.

2. I was talking about Muslims in the West. As for what they get up to in the Middle-east: I'm not sure. My guess would be it's pretty much the same as over here. The women simply grow up conditioned to behave within certain parameters. But no doubt there are more of them over there - still a minority though - that are pressured or forced into doing certain things compared to over here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

I never said the “slut” doesn’t choose not to dress that way voluntarily. I was talking about that the clothing only demonstrates something because the rest of society want to see it that way; hence it is more to do with others. A piece of clothing does not demonstrate anything unless it relates to the actions of the person or others.

I agree, as I said about. Social/cultural influence.

The way to get around this is two-fold. First educate society so the social influence to dress like a slut - or to listen to rap music for example - is no longer there. Secondly with a robust justice system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

Again, I barely see anyone dressing like “sluts.” Hell, not even when I went to London and Paris about 2 years ago.

It seems we live in two different worlds. I obviously don't know anything about where you live but where I'm from it's ain't too pretty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

Also, if one was to pressure a person to dress the way you would want them to, that to, would be “a sort of continual background oppression.”

I answered this earlier.

I wouldn't specify what clothes someone should wear, but I would set loose parameters on what someone shouldn't wear. I'm talking about the extremes here, the vast majority of present clothing would be acceptable.

I will also add the caveat here - I'm not a libertarian. I don't have any problem with the government laying down the law when there are clear, logical arguments for doing so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

I would think the point of a tattoo is to have it observable. Who gives a crap about it being provocative? The whole world is filled with provocative things. Dressing like an emo can be provocative. Your views are provocative. How someone looks at someone else can be provocative. Certain hand gestures or facial expressions can be provocative. We have however laws and security to reduce the chance of someone being attacked for these things and considering the majority probably wouldn’t attack someone for that, then I would say it’s pathetic to even blame someone for an attack because of that.

There are different levels of provocations. Having a tattoo of a Celtic Cross on your hand is, in my opinion, acceptable. Having a Swastika or Hammer and Sickle crosses the line. Most people don't really know that the Celtic Cross is an adopted symbol of White Nationalism. But they're all too aware of what the Swastika symbolises.

Also the Swastika is particularly potent because of the endless 'Nazi' documentaries on TV. Someone who has just wanted 'The Nazis: A Warning from History' at home and decides to go to the shop for a pint of milk and sees someone with a Swastika tattoo - that is pretty provocative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

How many times do I have to say it? People on average don’t from my personal experience. From what I see, most people tend to wear simply jeans and a shirt. Most of the people that dress differently look like emos or hipsters. Hell, I’ve also seen news reports, T.V. shows, etc. putting “sluts” in a negative light. The only industry I’ve seen basically promoting it has been in the music industry and in specific genres of music.

As above. Most people where I live are fine during the day time. But when night draws in on a weekend it's a different story. The city centre of a city near me on a Friday night is apparently terrible, according to relatives who've happened to be there late at night (I thankfully haven't witnessed it for myself). People are staggering round the streets, pissing in the gutter, even having sex. Maybe that's been exaggerated (I doubt it) but that's the type of thing that goes on. Jewish-inspired degeneracy 101.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

It doesn’t matter if it’s “artificial” in regards to what we were talking about. It is still a new standard. If society decided to voluntarily change their standard then it is not artificial. Hell, I don’t even know if Jews were the ones who brought about the rise in it. Behaviour of societies changes throughout history.

It certainly DOES matter if it's artificial.

Societies evolve and develop on their own, granted. But that's not what has happened to us in the last century.

Take America, for example. It's the best example, actually. In the 1700s and 1800s it was a fairly decent place overall, relatively speaking and taken in context with the problems it faced. It was only in the late 1800s/early 1900s that the Tsar of Russia had his Jewish pogroms which meant many Jews fled to America from eastern Europe and Russia. It was then that America started to change culturally - downwards.
Later in the 1930s and 1940s many more Jews fled from Europe to America because of the 'Nazis'. This batch of Jews was even worse than the former one. America started going down rapidly as more Jews migrated there and started infiltrating it's cultural life.

That's not forgetting the Frankfurt School which moved to New York (Columbia University) in 1935 because of the rise of the 'Nazis'. This band of mostly Jewish intellectuals are the originators of Cultural Marxism. These are the guys who started the big push for LGBT rights, immigration, Second Wave feminism etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

Why is the new dress type a lower standard? I don’t even get how you would decide how it’s a lower standard.

I'm amazed at your defense of slut dressing.

There are teenagers TODAY - in the over-sexualised society of today where degeneracy is pumped en masse into the music and TV media - that are slut-shaming girls/women who dress like sluts. There is a recent thread on these forums about it.

How is it that these teenager sheeple today are aware of the negatives of slutdom more than a WN like yourself?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

The insurance industry is one that’s out to make a profit. If they are extremely strict in what conditions they would set to actually pay for any damages, they won’t make a lot of revenue, thus decreasing the amount of net profit they will have. If they were extremely liberal in what they would pay for, they would be increasing their expenses and therefore decreasing their net profit as well. So it’s more about the influence of profit on their decisions and I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the conditions they set are considered unreasonable by the general public. So my first point is that, insurance companies would decide on what conditions they set, if they would insure or not insure something, due to the profit motivator and not necessarily to do with what one considers reasonable.

Create whatever economic reasons you want for it.

It basically boils down to this: keeping your front door locked is a reasonable request. Having mounted machine guns on the roof of your house isn't.

Not dressing like a slut is a reasonable request. Stopping women dying their hair blonde is an unreasonable measure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

No it isn’t. Considering that there are a variety of rapists, raping for a variety of reasons, just as there are differing sorts of murderers, that commit a murder for differing reasons, it is quite possible that someone dressing modestly, increases that person’s chance of being raped by certain types of rapists, while dressing like a “slut,” increases the chance one will be raped by other types of rapists. So if the rapist was one that looked for power and therefore is likely to attack a modestly dressed woman due to an association made by him, and if these types of rapists were more common, then it is possible that a modestly dressed woman has an overall greater chance of being raped than someone dressed like a “slut.”

I've answered this above. While it's possible there is a tiny minority of street rapists that target women for peculiar reasons - for example the 'office worker' look - that doesn't alter the fact that slut-dressing is designed to be sexual in nature. That's it's only purpose. It isn't for any other reason than to show of the sexual attributes of the female body. That's it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

On the other hand, if someone dressed modestly is considered more attractive in regards to facial structure, body mass, etc. then someone dressed like a “slut,” it’s likely that she would be chosen as a victim by someone that is intending to rape or in regards to just arousing interest which brings about a rape. She can also arouse the interest of a potential rapist probably more than girls dressed like “sluts,” if she is considered more attractive through non-artificial means when differently dressed women are present. So even if lust was purely the source of the rape occurring, then it is quite possible a modestly dressed woman could still have a higher chance of being raped and it isn’t necessarily the clothing that brings about the rape.

You're moving the goalposts, there. You're now trying to compare an attractive modestly dressed woman with a less attractive slut-dressed woman. This type of thing does not boost your debating credentials.

You have to compare apples and apples. Identical women. One dressed modestly. One dressed like a tart. The former has less chance of getting raped than the latter. Simple as.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

Also, if lust was the factor that played a part in the rape occurring, I doubt a woman exhibiting her body would have much of an impact. The guy is probably one movie sex scene away from becoming a serial rapist.

Lust does play a part in rape. How big a part compared to other factors - such as a desire to control - is hard to say. But it does play a part. If lust didn't enter the equation at all then rapists could just beat the woman up, or violate her with an implement. But rape usually involves the typical sexual procedure somewhere along the line, often accompanied by violence etc.

Therefore if we accept that lust plays a reasonable part in rape, and if we accept that dressing like a slut provokes that lust, then we have to put two and two together. Dressing like a slut increases the chance of getting raped. Which you've apparently already admitted to on several occasions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

No, I don’t think so. A person who chooses to rape someone because “she’s dressed like a slut, she must be up for it,” which I think is a complete joke of an excuse to rape someone, considering that a person has to probably have an IQ less than 70 to think that a woman would enjoy being forcibly penetrated, would simply be an association made by him. This can also be applied to the look of being submissive and easy to control by dressing in modestly dressed clothing. It is simply an association made by them and would hardly need to be thoroughly evaluated by them prior to the rape.

If there is anything illogical about that reasoning it lies more on the slut than the potential rapist.

If I was to attach slabs of meat to myself and walk into a dog pound then I would expect the dogs to pay me more attention than the other people walking round.

A slut who chooses to dress in such a manner is sending the signal that she is up for it. The fact that she may only want to be up for it with a particular man of her choosing is illogical on her behalf. If I would walk into a lion enclosure and expect to only be mauled by a lion of my choosing then that's plain daft.
While humans are of much higher mental capacity than lions we still have instincts at the end of the day. We can't 'switch off' because of social acceptability. The vast majority of us are capable of controlling ourselves to the degree that all we do is look. Others struggle more and find they need to grope. Others struggle much more and find that they won't take no for an answer.
These people should be punished, yes. But that doesn't alter the fact that there was some provocation. If a woman doesn't provoke by exposing 60% or more of her body then the entirety of the blame rests on the rapist. But by still choosing not to take this reasonable step she has to accept a small slice of the responsibility if she does get raped.

It's quite simple - and thankfully many women in this thread have agreed with the message - don't dress like a slut if you don't want unwanted sexual attention. It isn't an unreasonable request.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Grigz

Anyways, I’m also pretty sure most rapes are thought to be planned, therefore they would likely be reviewing the characteristics of the person and how they’re going to commit the crime.

I'm refering to 'street rapes', the 'random' type that occurs in the outside world between strangers.

PS: if you reply to me again could you not format your post with all of these silly font-altering things like bolding, italics, changing font style etc? It makes it harder to respond to you, just leave it at the forum default. Cheers.